We're trying to retrofit roads that were designed for cars smaller than many of today's, and make them useable for bikes. As a non-biking driver, I find it bizarre that cyclists think they can make it around safely. That's not a criticism - I wish we all cycled. I want to cycle. I just think it's naive to trust the plethora of douchebags, who are handed licences to drive, to not smash you with a ton of steel at 60mph. A chip on the shoulder or sense of road-belonging does not protect cyclists from steel juggernauts basically.
But as a driver I steer well clear of cyclists, and only get annoyed if they cycle two deep or bring them on trains during rush hour (fold ups get me in the knees too).
All totally well said
Before I got a driving licence I cycled everywhere and since I bought a bike a few months ago I've been out a lot. Following a fourteen year break!
I've always looked out for cyclists when I'm driving but think some of them need their heads examining the way they operate! Cyclepaths that are clear and a sensible size are fine, the ones in the road are outright dangerous. There is a national limit road on one of the routes I take and there is not enough tea in China to get me off the footpath onto that, he footpath is also a cycle path but I see cyclists on it every day and it is fucking scary as a car user let alone a soft fleshling on a metal frame!
This country will never accept cyclists like Europe has, if anything it has gotten worse or the standard of car user has rapidly deteriorated.
Could that possibly be in part due to the number of foreigners now driving on our roads?
Many foreigners drive using their own country's licence and don't have to pass a test for several months. Surely people have seen the very poor standard of driving in some countries when they've been abroad.
We're trying to retrofit roads that were designed for cars smaller than many of today's, and make them useable for bikes. As a non-biking driver, I find it bizarre that cyclists think they can make it around safely. That's not a criticism - I wish we all cycled. I want to cycle. I just think it's naive to trust the plethora of douchebags, who are handed licences to drive, to not smash you with a ton of steel at 60mph. A chip on the shoulder or sense of road-belonging does not protect cyclists from steel juggernauts basically.
But as a driver I steer well clear of cyclists, and only get annoyed if they cycle two deep or bring them on trains during rush hour (fold ups get me in the knees too).
All totally well said
Before I got a driving licence I cycled everywhere and since I bought a bike a few months ago I've been out a lot. Following a fourteen year break!
I've always looked out for cyclists when I'm driving but think some of them need their heads examining the way they operate! Cyclepaths that are clear and a sensible size are fine, the ones in the road are outright dangerous. There is a national limit road on one of the routes I take and there is not enough tea in China to get me off the footpath onto that, he footpath is also a cycle path but I see cyclists on it every day and it is fucking scary as a car user let alone a soft fleshling on a metal frame!
This country will never accept cyclists like Europe has, if anything it has gotten worse or the standard of car user has rapidly deteriorated.
Could that possibly be in part due to the number of foreigners now driving on our roads?
Many foreigners drive using their own country's licence and don't have to pass a test for several months. Surely people have seen the very poor standard of driving in some countries when they've been abroad.
I agree. It's a load of Dutch drivers over here stealing our jobs, women and driving wrecklessly.
The road tax/VED debate is now invalid as there are now cars that are VED-exempt due to their low emmisions.
Its been invalid since 1937.
Road tax. Yes.
VED. No.
No - the road tax/ved 'debate' is made no 'more' or 'less' invalid by the recent addition of ved-exempt vehicles. As has been pointed out, its been totally invalid since it was abolished in the 1930s.
The pedant in me points out that if an argument has no basis in fact, then it can't be 'more invalidated' by something.
The road tax/VED debate is now invalid as there are now cars that are VED-exempt due to their low emmisions.
Its been invalid since 1937.
Road tax. Yes.
VED. No.
No - the road tax/ved 'debate' is made no 'more' or 'less' invalid by the recent addition of ved-exempt vehicles. As has been pointed out, its been totally invalid since it was abolished in the 1930s.
The pedant in me points out that if an argument has no basis in fact, then it can't be 'more invalidated' by something.
The road tax/VED debate is now invalid as there are now cars that are VED-exempt due to their low emmisions.
Its been invalid since 1937.
Road tax. Yes.
VED. No.
No - the road tax/ved 'debate' is made no 'more' or 'less' invalid by the recent addition of ved-exempt vehicles. As has been pointed out, its been totally invalid since it was abolished in the 1930s.
The pedant in me points out that if an argument has no basis in fact, then it can't be 'more invalidated' by something.
So what am I paying then?
For the emission's of your vehicle, its a pollution tax. Always has been since it was introduced.
The road tax/VED debate is now invalid as there are now cars that are VED-exempt due to their low emmisions.
Its been invalid since 1937.
Road tax. Yes.
VED. No.
No - the road tax/ved 'debate' is made no 'more' or 'less' invalid by the recent addition of ved-exempt vehicles. As has been pointed out, its been totally invalid since it was abolished in the 1930s.
The pedant in me points out that if an argument has no basis in fact, then it can't be 'more invalidated' by something.
So what am I paying then?
For the emission's of your vehicle, its a pollution tax. Always has been since it was introduced.
So what is the official name then? As everywhere I look its called road tax or vehicle excise duty or road fund licence. I've never heard it called pollution tax before, especially by the DVLA who issue the things.
The road tax/VED debate is now invalid as there are now cars that are VED-exempt due to their low emmisions.
Its been invalid since 1937.
Road tax. Yes.
VED. No.
No - the road tax/ved 'debate' is made no 'more' or 'less' invalid by the recent addition of ved-exempt vehicles. As has been pointed out, its been totally invalid since it was abolished in the 1930s.
The pedant in me points out that if an argument has no basis in fact, then it can't be 'more invalidated' by something.
So what am I paying then?
For the emission's of your vehicle, its a pollution tax. Always has been since it was introduced.
So what is the official name then? As everywhere I look its called road tax or vehicle excise duty or road fund licence. I've never heard it called pollution tax before, especially by the DVLA who issue the things.
There's a great point made above about local councils putting cycle lanes in without any iota of thought. I wonder if they get a grant to do this from central government and just use it for fear of losing it. That would certainly explain some of the lunatic cycle lanes I've seen.
All vehicles, be they cars or cycles, when turning into a side road are supposed to wait for pedestrians (who are doing so, or just about to do so) to walk across said side road. Often they can be people marshalling children too. Do vehicles stop? Do they hell, they think 'you pedestrian you only have to wait for a nanosecond and I'm gone'. Those drivers are wrong according to the highway code but don't give a toss, and indeed often sweep into the turning expecting pedestrians to take a step or two back to get out of their way. How many of us here will always pause in the main road to allow pedestrians to cross the side road? Can you be honest with yourselves? Drivers who reverse out of a smaller road or driveway, or car parking place onto the main drag, and expect road users already on that drag to stop for them are also not driving according to the highway code. The rules of the road would help everybody if we all stuck to them, but each road user decides which ones to obey and which ones to ignore. Earlier in this thread somebody rants about cyclists being in 'MY way', sorry the road is everybody's way. If we all showed a bit more consideration there would be less death and injuries, a bit of 'you go, I go' would help. It is a great shame we are selective about which road rules we follow and which we ignore.
Vehicles only have to wait if the pedestrian has started to cross otherwise the vehicle has the right away.
I see your point, however for drivers what constitutes 'started' is very fluid. One foot off the kerb? Half way across? drivers seem to think that if they have what deem to be enough room to sweep dangerously round then they can, and they figure 'i'll be long gone, what can that pleb pedestrian do about it anyway, they'll neve see me again'.
To be honest, I'm not sure how it is that cyclists find the time for the enjoyment or despondency of riding into work. Most of them seem to be on my train of a morning, blocking up doorways and looking like helms.
Always feels to me a bit like trying to get y,our car onto a jumbo on your holidays then moaning why it can't happen.
All vehicles, be they cars or cycles, when turning into a side road are supposed to wait for pedestrians (who are doing so, or just about to do so) to walk across said side road. Often they can be people marshalling children too. Do vehicles stop? Do they hell, they think 'you pedestrian you only have to wait for a nanosecond and I'm gone'. Those drivers are wrong according to the highway code but don't give a toss, and indeed often sweep into the turning expecting pedestrians to take a step or two back to get out of their way. How many of us here will always pause in the main road to allow pedestrians to cross the side road? Can you be honest with yourselves? Drivers who reverse out of a smaller road or driveway, or car parking place onto the main drag, and expect road users already on that drag to stop for them are also not driving according to the highway code. The rules of the road would help everybody if we all stuck to them, but each road user decides which ones to obey and which ones to ignore. Earlier in this thread somebody rants about cyclists being in 'MY way', sorry the road is everybody's way. If we all showed a bit more consideration there would be less death and injuries, a bit of 'you go, I go' would help. It is a great shame we are selective about which road rules we follow and which we ignore.
Excellent post, and I agree with all of it. However, it does drive me crazy when pedestrians just wander out across side streets before actually looking if there is a car turning. Yes it may be there right of way if they ahve started crossing but at least look FFS.
All vehicles, be they cars or cycles, when turning into a side road are supposed to wait for pedestrians (who are doing so, or just about to do so) to walk across said side road. Often they can be people marshalling children too. Do vehicles stop? Do they hell, they think 'you pedestrian you only have to wait for a nanosecond and I'm gone'. Those drivers are wrong according to the highway code but don't give a toss, and indeed often sweep into the turning expecting pedestrians to take a step or two back to get out of their way. How many of us here will always pause in the main road to allow pedestrians to cross the side road? Can you be honest with yourselves? Drivers who reverse out of a smaller road or driveway, or car parking place onto the main drag, and expect road users already on that drag to stop for them are also not driving according to the highway code. The rules of the road would help everybody if we all stuck to them, but each road user decides which ones to obey and which ones to ignore. Earlier in this thread somebody rants about cyclists being in 'MY way', sorry the road is everybody's way. If we all showed a bit more consideration there would be less death and injuries, a bit of 'you go, I go' would help. It is a great shame we are selective about which road rules we follow and which we ignore.
Excellent post, and I agree with all of it. However, it does drive me crazy when pedestrians just wander out across side streets before actually looking if there is a car turning. Yes it may be there right of way if they ahve started crossing but at least look FFS.
Yes, they do indeed need to look first, however drivers interpret that self same look as 'great they can see me about to turn', and take it as tacit permission to turn, giving the pedestrians no choice in the matter.
4 cyclists riding 4 deep up seven sisters rd this morning at about half 1 causing buses and cars to go rd them got abusive to anyone who confronted them until they got to the lights at manor house and 2 fellas jumped out of their car and twatted all 4 laugh couldn't stop they rode single file all the way to Tottenham hale there after i rode so slowly home laughing at them it added an hr to my journey
Whenever I find myself driving selfishly, fast or whatever, I think of a scene in The Simpsons. Lenny is trying to beat a red light. "Come on come on, stay yellow," he says as he accelerates and beats the red. "Yeah!" he cries. But then he slows down and ponders "if only I had some place to go."
I don't agree with the violence but riding more than 2 abreast is just asking for trouble, actually 2 abreast on a busy street is stupid too. Chatting whilst cycling in traffic is too dangerous for me.
In the first instance I was cycling along the cycling super highway that goes from Tower Bridge to the top of the Isle of Dogs. At Shadwell there is a zebra crossing outside the DLR station with a fence that means pedestrians can only cross on the zebra crossing itself. As I approached the zebra crossing I could see this guy suddenly quicken his pace to try and get to the zebra crossing before me and make me stop. I was virtually on the zebra crossing as he stepped out without hesitation and then shouted some comment about the fact he thought I should have stopped rather than hold him up for a nano second (even though I new he was simply trying to engineer his daily contretemps with a London cyclist). I was enraged and must apologise to any pedestrians who heard my response to him. A few days later I was approaching another zebra crossing where the oncoming traffic was stopped as two or three young blokes were half way across. I estimated I hardly needed to slow down as they would be across before I reached the crossing. But one of them looked up and saw me approaching and suddenly slowed right down simply to ensure I came to a stop. Well I didn't and as I went past I deliberately brushed against his rucksack with my arm and said ' Take all the time you want you f**king twat!' This is not my normal behaviour but it is happening more and more (maybe it is the adrenalin created while exercising that makes cyclists so aggressive?).
You seem to have a lot of anger issues. Too aggressive.
You are not the first person to make that point to me!
Never mind pedestrians. It's super sports cars that are the real problem.
It was a super sports car that did not indicate infront of me
This riding two-a-breast thing does my head in too and I'm consider myself a proper cyclist.
If you go on one of the organised Sky Rides, they encourage the riders to ride two-a-breast so as to make the riders more visible and safer to the passing traffic.
I totally disagree with this.
It was the same when riding with my old club when I first started cycling. Two or three-a-breast seemed to be the norm. The people were more interested in chatting than getting any better and as a result they had absolutely no road awareness and were literally a danger to themselves and others.
Its worse when there's a big group, say 16-20 riders or more on a country lane when they leave no space for cars to pull into when overtaking.
When I'm riding with my mate, who I've literally rode thousands of miles with, we're fairly sensible. We'll ride two-a-breast when its safe and we need to chat but as soon as we see a car approaching from front or behind, we instantly drop into single file, no matter what the road conditions are. When we're properly training, we spend most of the time taking turns on each others back wheel anyway.
Comments
VED. No.
The pedant in me points out that if an argument has no basis in fact, then it can't be 'more invalidated' by something.
Seems to me you've asked a question and been given a conclusive answer to it! What's to 'give up', exactly?
How many of us here will always pause in the main road to allow pedestrians to cross the side road? Can you be honest with yourselves?
Drivers who reverse out of a smaller road or driveway, or car parking place onto the main drag, and expect road users already on that drag to stop for them are also not driving according to the highway code.
The rules of the road would help everybody if we all stuck to them, but each road user decides which ones to obey and which ones to ignore.
Earlier in this thread somebody rants about cyclists being in 'MY way', sorry the road is everybody's way.
If we all showed a bit more consideration there would be less death and injuries, a bit of 'you go, I go' would help.
It is a great shame we are selective about which road rules we follow and which we ignore.
Whatever it's called it's bloody expensive! And cyclists shouldn't have to pay it regardless of what some people think.
Always feels to me a bit like trying to get y,our car onto a jumbo on your holidays then moaning why it can't happen.
Excellent post, and I agree with all of it. However, it does drive me crazy when pedestrians just wander out across side streets before actually looking if there is a car turning. Yes it may be there right of way if they ahve started crossing but at least look FFS.
Chatting whilst cycling in traffic is too dangerous for me.
Except Wiggo!
If you go on one of the organised Sky Rides, they encourage the riders to ride two-a-breast so as to make the riders more visible and safer to the passing traffic.
I totally disagree with this.
It was the same when riding with my old club when I first started cycling. Two or three-a-breast seemed to be the norm. The people were more interested in chatting than getting any better and as a result they had absolutely no road awareness and were literally a danger to themselves and others.
Its worse when there's a big group, say 16-20 riders or more on a country lane when they leave no space for cars to pull into when overtaking.
When I'm riding with my mate, who I've literally rode thousands of miles with, we're fairly sensible. We'll ride two-a-breast when its safe and we need to chat but as soon as we see a car approaching from front or behind, we instantly drop into single file, no matter what the road conditions are. When we're properly training, we spend most of the time taking turns on each others back wheel anyway.